Support NeoGAF

[Ekai]

An interesting new right wing you are talking about, I must live in a different Yurop.

I think they live in a different reality.

ITT: Gen Xers who don't understand millenials

That's generally how I view it when some people on this board bemoan millennials.

Some of y'all in here have no clue how Millenials actually act or think in real life. But go ahead, keep casting your false perceptions onto an entire generation as if they're all the same type of person.

That stuff has been so annoying during this political cycle. It still happens too which is even more annoying.

 

[Trojita]

Shriver contested these criticisms, arguing that accusations of racism and cultural appropriation were tantamount to censorship and that all writers ought to be entitled to write from any perspective, race, gender or background that they chose

You aren't entitled to be free from criticism. I also feel if you are writing from the perspective of a different people you should understand their perspective or you are just a shitty writer as well.

 

[DedValve]

Has the radical left abandoned notions of free speech as much as the radical right? If so, how do we convince a generation of children that hearing things that make you uncomfortable isn't the end of the world?

I mean our generation is usually for a lot of pro social movements such as LGBT rights, womens rights, minority rights, gender equality, despite our generation possibly being more racist than our parents we still fight against it.

If anything we should be focused on Republican obstructionism and how this past presidency has been the most neutered one yet because its a bunch of sensitive old pricks who refuse to listen to our generation.

Sure you could just as easily say our generation refuses to compromise which in this grey world isn't so easily achievable and that we can take things too far (I know I certainly have) but at the end of the day its not us millennials whose crying about sensitivity.

EDIT: Nor is it our generation who needs convincing.

 

[entremet]

There is plenty of discussion and debate going on here.

I think you guys don't see the contradictions now going the other other way. It's fair to point out the author's history with the public rightly criticizing this book which is the root of everything the author is saying.


LOL nailed it.

Young liberals are already over identity politics. They want to dismantle capitalism now. You guys are like adults talking about kids lingo that's already dated by the time you hear about it.

LOL. Gen Xers wanted to dismantle capitalism too, then they got mortgages and kids.

 

[Trojita]

Some of y'all in here have no clue how Millenials actually act or think in real life. But go ahead, keep casting your false perceptions onto an entire generation as if they're all the same type of person.

The millennial net is too wide to begin with and vague as fuck when it ends. I have nothing in common with kids born in the 2000's, but apparently they are millennials as well.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

LOL. Gen Xers wanted to dismantle capitalism too, then they got mortgages and kids.

Not sure if many millenials will ever see a mortgage. :/

 

[Goro Majima]

Is there evidence to suggest that a significant amount of the left is wanting to actually legislate against expressions of speech?

Seems to me there's a huge difference between "outrage" or whatever and actively pursuing restriction of speech legally.

Freedom of speech includes criticism, shaming, and outrage whether it's valid or invalid. Publishers, the media, corporations, and individuals might make choices to self censor in response to these things but they're not being compelled to legally as far as I know (in the US anyway).

If I see that a majority of Democratic voters call for the addition of censorship to the party platform, we might have an issue.

 

[Cyanity]

Listening doesn't mean just shutting the fuck up, though that's a huge part of it that most people can't do anyway for some reason. Stepping out of your comfort zone means recognizing arguments and opinions you don't like could be coming from an informed, logical place that you just can't see because you don't have the same life experience.

This so much. This is how a lot of millenials think, we are absolutely willing to change opinion on things when the argument comes from a logical and empathetic place. But the political landscape is so divided along good/evil lines right now that there is no coherent logical argument for the right at this point in time. So what's happening is, millenials who see their parents and coworkers falling for clear BS are getting increasingly frustrated with these people and are lashing out at them (from a place of sadness). This is seen by the older generations as "insubordination" or "being inherently unreasonable", because they all seem to think that a dissenting opinion is an unacceptable opinion. Millenials tend to understand that a good opinion needs a good argument to go with it though, and we tend to have excellent debates among one another in friend groups.

Millenials are just sick of the bullshit

 

[entremet]

Is there evidence to suggest that a significant amount of the left is wanting to actually legislate against expressions of speech?

Seems to me there's a huge difference between "outrage" or whatever and actively pursuing restriction of speech legally.

Freedom of speech includes criticism, shaming, and outrage whether it's valid or invalid. Publishers, the media, corporations, and individuals might make choices to self censor in response to these things but they're not being compelled to legally as far as I know (in the US anyway).

If I see that a majority of Democratic voters call for the addition of censorship to the party platform, we might have an issue.

Yes.

From Pew Research, not an amateur operation. To clarify this about American Millennials--not the general Left.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.

 

[DedValve]

Not sure if many millenials will ever see a mortgage. :/

after college and a car I've made it my goal to try and avoid debt as much as possible. I don't want to see a mortgage. Ever.

Yes.

From Pew Research, not an amateur operation. To clarify this about American Millennials--not the general Left.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.

How goddamn DARE us. The gall of us millennials. /s

 

[Lonely1]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ente...3a5620-7e9f-11e6-8d13-d7c704ef9fd9_story.html



shitty writer gets pushback from her book, decries criticism as the collapse of civilization

That sounds horrible. Backslash is guaranteed.

 

[Akiraptor]

oh no not the rights of neo-nazis

oh no whatever will we do without neo-nazis walking down our streets

oh noooooo

This is exactly the attitude that lends to Donald Trump having support amongst moderates. One can't be for free speech while saying those who disagree with him or her shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion. People waving a swastika have just as much right to march down the street non-violently as BLM and those waving rainbow flags do.

Banning ideas, even venomous ones like neo-nazis have, is tyranny, not social justice. Authoritarianism is not a phenomena localized on the political right.

Also, anyone who groups millennials into a singular entity I picture waving their cane shouting at the "dang kids" to get off their lawn. That's not a trait of Gen Xers specifically, it's something some aging people do every time a new generation comes into its own. I'm sure there will be those in the millennial generation who do the same to whatever comes after.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Some of us actually are millennials and do not care for millennials, either. The idea that you have to be a cranky Gen Xer to find millennials intolerable when it comes to matters political and otherwise is incorrect.

 

[entremet]

after college and a car I've made it my goal to try and avoid debt as much as possible. I don't want to see a mortgage. Ever.




How goddamn DARE us. The gall of us millennials. /s

Yes, lets give the government more power because that's worked so well historically.

Again, I have no issue with people facing criticism and shame outside of government censure. For example, as Palmer Luckey is currently facing.

But he's under no government threat.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

It's always interesting to me to see the furthering pushback to the growing consciousness around social issues.

I'd imagine some authors and thinkers liked to think of this new social networking era as a platform for them to spread more of their ideas. And while that may be true, it's also a platform for those ideas to come under attack.

Because of this, the cries for free speech and censorship are a fairly weak argument. We're dealing with intellectuals expect their words to be passed around without comment, and that their thoughts require no defense. Why should I have to defend my work? It's self evidently my own. I spread my ideas and you eat them up or silently disagree in your voiceless homes, that's how this works!

"To the privileged, equality feels like oppression." To the thinker usually afforded an unfiltered, uncommented, undoubted line into most of political and social discourse, this new world seems disturbing. I used to be able to say what I want, and now my audience is holding me to a higher standard and calling me out. And sometimes that has consequence - it can result in bad press and I can even lose some sales.

I see this as a maturing of political and social debate. For a while, you could write a book, and fall under little to no criticism. Followup arguments against your writing may be published, but they take time to compile and much of your audience may never even know they existed. Now, we see large takedowns of articles getting passed around more than the article itself, sometimes immediately after an essay or book has been published. Anyone can self publish a blog, and that blog can spool into large, enormous debates.

Suddenly, many people have found their voices, and those people are using them. Sometimes in unfortunate ways - there are certainly examples of this not working well. But discourse and debate has never been foolproof.

 

[DedValve]

Yes, lets give the government more power because that's worked so well historically.

Again, I have no issue with people facing criticism and shame outside of government censure. For example, as Palmer Luckey is currently facing.

But he's under no government threat.

I think there should definitely be consequences for hate speech. It has no place in modern society.

EDIT: On second thought, it has no place in any society at any point in history either in the past or future. It never has and it never will.

 

[Cyanity]

It's always interesting to me to see the furthering pushback to the growing consciousness around social issues.

I'd imagine some authors and thinkers liked to think of this new social networking era as a platform for them to spread more of their ideas. And while that may be true, it's also a platform for those ideas to come under attack.

Because of this, the cries for free speech and censorship are a fairly weak argument. We're dealing with intellectuals expect their words to be passed around without comment, and that their thoughts require no defense. Why should I have to defend my work? It's self evidently my own. I spread my ideas and you eat them up or silently disagree in your voiceless homes, that's how this works!

"To the privileged, equality feels like oppression." To the thinker usually afforded an unfiltered, uncommented, undoubted line into most of political and social discourse, this new world seems disturbing. I used to be able to say what I want, and now my audience is holding me to a higher standard and calling me out. And sometimes that has consequence - it can result in bad press and I can even lose some sales.

I see this as a maturing of political and social debate. For a while, you could write a book, and fall under little to no criticism. Followup arguments against your writing may be published, but they take time to compile and much of your audience may never even know they existed. Now, we see large takedowns of articles getting passed around more than the article itself, sometimes immediately after an essay or book has been published. Anyone can self publish a blog, and that blog can spool into large, enormous debates.

Suddenly, many people have found their voices, and those people are using them. Sometimes in unfortunate ways - there are certainly examples of this not working well. But discourse and debate has never been foolproof.

I agree with all of this.

 

[thegoosen]

Yes.

From Pew Research, not an amateur operation. To clarify this about American Millennials--not the general Left.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.

Sounds like the prevention of hate speeches European countries have. Even though right wing politicians are usually get away with it anyway.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

This so much. This is how a lot of millenials think, we are absolutely willing to change opinion on things when the argument comes from a logical and empathetic place. But the political landscape is so divided along good/evil lines right now that there is no coherent logical argument for the right at this point in time. So what's happening is, millenials who see their parents and coworkers falling for clear BS are getting increasingly frustrated with these people and are lashing out at them (from a place of sadness). This is seen by the older generations as "insubordination" or "being inherently unreasonable", because they all seem to think that a dissenting opinion is an unacceptable opinion. Millenials tend to understand that a good opinion needs a good argument to go with it though, and we tend to have excellent debates among one another in friend groups.

Millenials are just sick of the bullshit

I feel like your comments are being slightly contradictory to what you quoted.

I see "well informed millenials" demeaning and putting down people for not having the same well informed opinions as them. It's entirely possible to have a differencing opinion where "facts" are being discussed. I'm using "facts" in quotes because in the context of millenials we're looking at them against the boomers. For many boomers they're obtaining facts that may not be in line with millenials. Just because their facts are from differing sources does not make them any less meaningful to the other.

Hell, look at this years election and the last election. Tons of millenials on constantly thinking/saying "how do people support X" or "how do people think y". But what a lot of them fail to realize is this country is HUGE and even going 50-75 miles outside of their metro area can open their eyes to how different things are. Shit, there's tech billionaires who want to build a damn island because they don't want to pay taxes and they're living in one of the most progressive areas of the country.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

This is exactly the attitude that lends to Donald Drumpf having support amongst moderates. One can't be for free speech while saying those who disagree with him or her shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion. People waving a swastika have just as much right to march down the street non-violently as BLM and those waving rainbow flags do.

Banning ideas, even venomous ones like neo-nazis have, is tyranny, not social justice. Authoritarianism is not a phenomena localized on the political right.

Well you must also take into account that letting Nazis protest does help normalize them.

Not to mention that they actually will try and kill people who don't agree with them (happened in Finland just a while back).

 

[entremet]

I think there should definitely be consequences for hate speech. It has no place in modern society.

EDIT: On second thought, it has no place in any society at any point in history either in the past or future. It never has and it never will.

This is where we diverge. And that's fine. An an American citizen, I do not want any hate speech laws here.

 

[Cartman86]

Political correctness is sometimes clumsy but better than anything else. There are some cases right now where it's gone too far sure. This usually involves colleges and critics of Islam (I'm sure people will disagree), but I am confident we will find our way.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I feel like both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of it in different ways. And yea, that book appears to be rather gross, but the op ed is worth discussing.

Moreover it seems like arguing the merits of the author is herself a feint; the Guardian article isn't really about anything objectionable in the book (it's never mentioned), it's solely about her speech.

I mean our generation is usually for a lot of pro social movements such as LGBT rights, womens rights, minority rights, gender equality, despite our generation possibly being more racist than our parents we still fight against it.

If anything we should be focused on Republican obstructionism and how this past presidency has been the most neutered one yet because its a bunch of sensitive old pricks who refuse to listen to our generation.


EDIT: Nor is it our generation who needs convincing.

The reason those Republicans obstruct things is because it's politically rewarded for them to do so. Millennials have failed to realize that pragmatic voting is what matters a lot more than campus demonstrations, and until young people learn that they're going to be futilely holding up their own progress. I don't think that's something new (cue a "millennials have ruined voting!" thinkpiece) but it's also pretty self-evident. They're the largest age bracket now; they have plenty of potential political capital.

 

[Hades Hotgun]

Okay so reading the article:

Briefly, my address maintained that fiction writers should be allowed to write fiction — thus should not let concerns about “cultural appropriation” constrain our creation of characters from different backgrounds than our own. I defended fiction as a vital vehicle for empathy. If we have permission to write only about our own personal experience, there is no fiction, but only memoir. Honestly, my thesis seemed so self-evident that I’d worried the speech would be bland.

Sure. But I honestly haven't seen a lot of push back from liberals on the inclusion of minorities in fiction. If anything I have seen the opposite, but okay, I agree with the idea here.


But then things take a quick turn to this:

Nope — not in the topsy-turvy universe of identity politics. The festival immediately disavowed the address, though the organizers had approved the thrust of the talk in advance. A “Right of Reply” session was hastily organized.

You are upset the someone is given an opportunity to reply?

Things are going badly and only get worse, ultimately landing here:

Ms. Abdel-Magied got the question right: How is this happening? How did the left in the West come to embrace restriction, censorship and the imposition of an orthodoxy at least as tyrannical as the anti-Communist, pro-Christian conformism I grew up with? Liberals have ominously relabeled themselves “progressives,” forsaking a noun that had its roots in “liber,” meaning free. To progress is merely to go forward, and you can go forward into a pit.

Protecting freedom of speech involves protecting the voices of people with whom you may violently disagree. In my youth, liberals would defend the right of neo-Nazis to march down Main Street. I cannot imagine anyone on the left making that case today.

In what world is any of this true?

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jun/27/aclu-assist-kkk-georgia-road


Apparently the ACLU doesn't exist in this woman's perception of reality.

You got criticized for something and rather than respond with a rational argument or self reflection, you can only think to declare the enemy to be McCarthy-like? You cry about freedom of speech because other people got to talk?

Lady, the kids are alright. Freedom of speech is not under threat just because people are allowed to call you out, rather those actions are the fulfillment of that freedom.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

This is where we diverge. And that's fine. An an American citizen, I do not want any hate speech laws here.

Ditto. The principle of free speech is that speech's natural predator is better-conceived speech, and "hate speech" is a nebulous concept, regardless, considering that it is categorized based on how the speech is received by others yet implies motive on the part of the utterer that may or may not exist.

 

[aeolist]

Moreover it seems like arguing the merits of the author is herself a feint; the Guardian article isn't really about anything objectionable in the book (it's never mentioned), it's solely about her speech.

her speech is about reaction to her book

i don't get why people are trying to separate her own work from this, it's inextricably linked

 

[entremet]

Ditto. The principle of free speech is that speech's natural predator is better-conceived speech, and "hate speech" is a nebulous concept, regardless, considering that it implies motive on the part of the utterer that may or may not exist.

Also have hate speech laws prevented far right and very obviously racists groups in Europe from forming and gaining ground?

No.

It's a very shallow response to real social progress.

 

[nel e nel]

Oh hey, another person who wrote a shitty book and got criticized for it misunderstanding what free speech means.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/136763/lionel-shriver-shouldnt-write-minorities

Worth quoting so we see how Shriver cherry picked her own speech to paint her as a victim:

In an attempt to advocate for fiction without boundaries, Shriver, best-selling author of We Need to Talk About Kevin and Orange Prize winner, declared the criticism of cultural appropriation “a passing fad” and claimed that “membership of a larger group is not an identity.” Instead of stopping there, she colored her borderline offensive comment with examples: “Being Asian is not an identity. Being gay is not an identity. Being deaf, blind, or wheelchair-bound is not an identity, nor is being economically deprived.”

 

[Darth Ghandi]

her speech is about reaction to her book

i don't get why people are trying to separate her own work from this, it's inextricably linked

Cause something something PC culture something censorship.

 

[ElNarez]

This is exactly the attitude that lends to Donald Trump having support amongst moderates. One can't be for free speech while saying those who disagree with him or her shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion. People waving a swastika have just as much right to march down the street non-violently as BLM and those waving rainbow flags do.

Banning ideas, even venomous ones like neo-nazis have, is tyranny, not social justice. Authoritarianism is not a phenomena localized on the political right.

Yes. You are right. There is no difference between Black Lives Matter demonstrations, Pride Parades, and neo-nazi marches. They are equivalent, advocating for similar ideas, with similar effects on society at large.

No they're not. Neo-nazis are unique among your examples in that the thing they are advocating for is actual authoritarianism. They are the ones actually advocating against free speech, and for actual tyranny. Specifically, the tyranny of Nazism and Adolf Hitler. Things that have existed. Things that we know are tyrannical from history.

It says a lot about the liberal mindset that what is to be repudiated is not neo-nazis, but in fact the leftists protesting against them. It's sound logic in the abstract, I'll give you that, but in the real world, it is a moral imperative to shut out neo-nazis from the public conversation. Because they're intrinsically dangerous to free speech.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Yes. You are right. There is no difference between Black Lives Matter demonstrations, Pride Parades, and neo-nazi marches. They are equivalent, advocating for similar ideas, with similar effects on society at large.

No they're not. Neo-nazis are unique among your examples in that the thing they are advocating for is actual authoritarianism. They are the ones actually advocating against free speech, and for actual tyranny. Specifically, the tyranny of Nazism and Adolf Hitler. Things that have existed. Things that we know are tyrannical from history.

It says a lot about the liberal mindset that what is to be repudiated is not neo-nazis, but in fact the leftists protesting against them. It's sound logic in the abstract, I'll give you that, but in the real world, it is a moral imperative to shut out neo-nazis from the public conversation. Because they're intrinsically dangerous to free speech.

You can shut down Neo Nazis from the public conversation by engaging with their ideas, not making expression of those ideas illegal.

 

[ElNarez]

You can shut down Neo Nazis from the public conversation by engaging with their ideas, not making expression of those ideas illegal.

And that's worked so well for you, as proven by the fact nazism completely died.

 

[Fuchsdh]

This so much. This is how a lot of millenials think, we are absolutely willing to change opinion on things when the argument comes from a logical and empathetic place. But the political landscape is so divided along good/evil lines right now that there is no coherent logical argument for the right at this point in time. So what's happening is, millenials who see their parents and coworkers falling for clear BS are getting increasingly frustrated with these people and are lashing out at them (from a place of sadness). This is seen by the older generations as "insubordination" or "being inherently unreasonable", because they all seem to think that a dissenting opinion is an unacceptable opinion. Millenials tend to understand that a good opinion needs a good argument to go with it though, and we tend to have excellent debates among one another in friend groups.

Millenials are just sick of the bullshit

Which is more likely: millennials are the same kinds of people as young people since forever, or they're special empathic snowflakes that are singularly open-minded?

I'm going to say that millennials are humans as the rest of us, and that they aren't actually more intellectually open to reasoned debate than any other group. The "Bernie or bust" movement wasn't logical. The "I'll vote libertarian because I care about weed more than anything else" isn't a logical political mindset.

 

[ClosingADoor]

And that's worked so well for you, as proven by the fact nazism completely died.

There are laws against Nazi stuff and their display in various European countries. It doesn't help with removing the ideas also.

 

[Darth Ghandi]

You can shut down Neo Nazis from the public conversation by engaging with their ideas, not making expression of those ideas illegal.

Yeah, you go ahead.
https://varisverkosto.com/2016/09/d...up-killed-bypasser-during-their-street-event/

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

And that's worked so well for you, as proven by the fact nazism completely died.

As far as the public conversation is concerned? Generally yes. There are no governments following a Nazi agenda, they hold little to no political power throughout the world, and little to know sway in intellectual discourse. To most people, it's effortless to disprove or debate against a Nazi writer or speaker because their thoughts are all based on easy to disprove "facts," such as racism.

But then, I don't believe the goal is to remove an idea completely from the world. You can't. You're fighting an uphill battle. Even if you make an idea illegal to express, it still exists. This is the logical foundation for free speech.

Yeah, you go ahead.
https://varisverkosto.com/2016/09/d...up-killed-bypasser-during-their-street-event/

There's a difference between speech and violent assembly.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Worth quoting so we see how Shriver cherry picked her own speech to paint her as a victim:

I'm dying at her saying there are no identities or groups coupled with this NYT piece targeting a certain identity and group.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

And that's worked so well for you, as proven by the fact nazism completely died.

I mean, actual Nazism is a fringe of a fringe of a fringe. There are movements that can be defined as white supremacist in nature or effect, but the true "alt-right" (a.k.a. Neo-Nazis), the people that read Kevin MacDonald and tell you why the Jews are really the world's great enemy, are few in number and have no real political power.

Edit: Shriver is correct. Those things AREN'T identities, unto themselves. It is one's idiosyncratic reactions and adaptations to circumstances, and not the circumstances, themselves, that comprise the self, and this is far too often forgotten in the modern conception of identity politics.

 

[JoeyJungle]

I'm saying that if someone is ignorant the onus is on them to seek out and learn, or at the very least be open minded, not on the people who actually have to deal with shit. Recognize that if you're a straight person you don't actually know much about what living as a queer person in our society is like. Recognize that as a white person you don't actually know much about what the modern black life is like. Hell, recognize as a black person that you don't fully understand what the modern asian life is like, and visa versa. But when people say "hey this thing is offensive for these reasons" don't just reflexively shut down with "WHAT NO I MADE A PERFECT THING YOU'RE WRONG I'M NOT A BAD PERSON" which is what this author seems to be doing


But its not unrelated at all. This topic in question is entirely founded on people's experiences, and this piece is founded on the author's experience

Maybe my interpretation is wrong, but I thought the author was more referencing things like http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/u...otesters-block-journalists-press-freedom.html and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-some-students-said-they-no-longer-feel-safe/ (posted these earlier in the thread, sorry if it seems like I'm spamming links). These scenarios are what I immediately jump to when people talk about/criticize the more extreme trigger warnings or micro-agressions, or talk about millenials desiring censorship.

I view these scenarios separately from things I find more understandably legitimate and important, like the african american experience with police, LGBTQ harassment and discrimination in the US, etc.

"you're not reading the article or responding to its claims!" *misgenders the author*

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the author and thought that Lionel was a gendered name.

Listening doesn't mean just shutting the fuck up, though that's a huge part of it that most people can't do anyway for some reason. Stepping out of your comfort zone means recognizing arguments and opinions you don't like could be coming from an informed, logical place that you just can't see because you don't have the same life experience.

I agree with that, but people who are not naturally inclined to seek out opinions and arguments that challenge their own will probably just fall deeper into their echo chamber if they only response they ever receive is "You're racist".

I was responding to this post:

Minorities have no obligation to coddle, educate, and empathize with people who refuse to step out their echo chamber/comfort zone while they the minorities are constantly in a state of discomfort due to the complete insensitivity and most times purposeful maliciousness of others. I'm of the mindset of calling people for what they are and going about my day. No thanks so the role of coddler, educator, empathiser. Definitively not on that magical negro shit

I totally agree that minorities have no obligation to do that, but I think that if the response instead is just an angry tweet or mob harassment, that doesn't help anything either. If the only response they get to their beliefs are angry tweets saying they're racist, instead of encouragement to seek out experiences and writings about the African-American/LGBTQ/minority experience in America, they'll just further cement their beliefs instead of ever seekings out or being given the resources to learn more about the experience of other communities in the US.

If the conversation is just "When I see something racist, I hit back hard", the response to that will just be "When I get called a racist, someone's being too sensitive, and I'm going to hit back harder until they crack", which is how you get Trump and so many people saying they like him because "He just tells it like it is!" despite being probably the most dishonest politician in modern america politics.

If instead the conversation is something like "I disagree with what you said, and I think it's racist. Here's a good article I read earlier discussing this exact thing, they make a really good argument that might change your mind or at least view this topic differently", I think that would have more effect than whatever "calling out racism when I see it" does.

But I am approaching this topic from the perspective a white man so I'm assuming I'm completely blind to a lot of the threads, topics, and conversations that go into this. I try to expand my point of view, but I'm usually afraid to ask questions or question opinions in topics like this because I usually get attacked for several posts until I explain myself.

 

[Htown]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from having your speech criticized.

But go ahead, claim that the thought police are knocking down your door because you said some racist shit and it got called racist shit.

We'll totally pretend it's society that's oversensitive and not your whining ass.

 

[MistakenMobius]

It's sound logic in the abstract, I'll give you that, but in the real world, it is a moral imperative to shut out neo-nazis from the public conversation. Because they're intrinsically dangerous to free speech.

Do you agree that we should do the same for Islamist sympathizer and communist one?
Those two are also intrinsically damaging to free speech

 

[Darth Ghandi]

As far as the public conversation is concerned? Generally yes. There are no governments following a Nazi agenda, they hold little to no political power throughout the world, and little to know sway in intellectual discourse. To most people, it's effortless to disprove or debate against a Nazi writer or speaker because their thoughts are all based on easy to disprove "facts," such as racism.

But then, I don't believe the goal is to remove an idea completely from the world. You can't. You're fighting an uphill battle. Even if you make an idea illegal to express, it still exists. This is the logical foundation for free speech.



There's a difference between speech and violent assembly.

I dont' agree with you.
I can see the normalization of Nazi rooted groups in Sweden.
This year they attended the national book fair, were they had people harass and intimidate others.
They are allowed on the news and spout lies with out being called out (just like Drumpf).

Nationalist demonstrations are held outside synagogue.

 

[GamerJM]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ente...3a5620-7e9f-11e6-8d13-d7c704ef9fd9_story.html



shitty writer gets pushback from her book, decries criticism as the collapse of civilization

Jesus christ, this isn't just shitty writing, it sounds like they wrote a legitimately hateful, racist, and mean-spirited piece of fiction.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ente...3a5620-7e9f-11e6-8d13-d7c704ef9fd9_story.html



shitty writer gets pushback from her book, decries criticism as the collapse of civilization

holy cow. It's an alt-right doomsaying piece disguised as "fiction"

 

[Silver Arrows]

This so much. This is how a lot of millenials think, we are absolutely willing to change opinion on things when the argument comes from a logical and empathetic place. But the political landscape is so divided along good/evil lines right now that there is no coherent logical argument for the right at this point in time. So what's happening is, millenials who see their parents and coworkers falling for clear BS are getting increasingly frustrated with these people and are lashing out at them (from a place of sadness). This is seen by the older generations as "insubordination" or "being inherently unreasonable", because they all seem to think that a dissenting opinion is an unacceptable opinion. Millenials tend to understand that a good opinion needs a good argument to go with it though, and we tend to have excellent debates among one another in friend groups.

Millenials are just sick of the bullshit

Exactly.

 

[dave is ok]

This thread is a good example of the type of problem she's talking about. Dozens of people who have never read a single word of the book criticizing it as if they had

 

[Htown]

This thread is a good example of the type of problem she's talking about. Dozens of people who have never read a single word of the book criticizing it as if they had

oh cool, you read it then? how is it?

 

[MistakenMobius]

Nationalist demonstrations are held outside synagogue.

Are you they are not pro Palestinian support group?
Old school racist are more pro-Arab and in see dent it kind of make sense

 

[dave is ok]

oh cool, you read it then? how is it?

I didn't read it. I'm also not calling her a racist

 

[deli2000]

This thread is a good example of the type of problem she's talking about. Dozens of people who have never read a single word of the book criticizing it as if they had

"You haven't read all the bible so how can you criticize it?"